JPost reports that Swiss Jews are worried about a sharp rise in the frequency of anti-Semitic acts in Switzerland – and about the lack of interest in this danger on the part of Swiss authorities.
“The latest anti-Semitic incident was on March 2 at the ZDVO annual fundraiser, held at the famed Teatre du Leman in the Kempinski Hotel in Geneva. It was the target of "violent protests" by pro-Palestinian demonstrators, according to Meyer, lead coordinator of the event.
“Pro-Palestinian group the Collectif Urgance Palestine (CUP), clad in black masks, threw stones, made Nazi salutes, verbally assaulted the event participants and videotaped and photographed the entrance, yelling, "We’re going to find each of you!"”
The Swiss police are something less than energetic in their concern about violence against Jews:
“Meyer cited another incident earlier this year in which the windows of Geneva’s kollel were smashed in with baseball bats – an incident she said the Jewish community regarded as anti-Semitic, but the Swiss police claimed was just vandalism.
"It depends on the point of view," said [police spokesman] Philippe. Aside from that, he noted, it was "an isolated event."”
This is the best part:
“Regarding the purported threatening letters ahead of the ZDVO fundraiser, Philippe admitted, "I have heard that rumor, but it hasn’t been investigated. We judged it was not useful to investigate because we arrived at the conclusion that it was a false rumor."”
Do you see how convenient this logic is? Do you make your conclusions on the basis of an investigation? Or do you decide to whether to investigate on the basis of your conclusions? Of course, it is much less work to do the latter, but it raises the question of what the basis for the conclusion was, if not the results of investigation. What possible basis could there be for such a conclusion?
